Meeting minutes
Minutes Review
<kaz> Mar-27
McCool: Looked at the minutes in the chairs call
… didn't see any major issues
… fixed a link inbetween
… JSON Schema will be discussed today again
… resources is still in flux
… any objections to publishing?
… hearing no objections, minutes are approved
Quick Items
IRC
McCool: There is a new syntax for indicating the channel in the IRC
… you can use it to indicate the channel
… for some reason, it still prompts me for my username, which is a bit annoying
… there is an email with a complaint
Ege: Sent a follow-up email to that
… you can set a bookmark with the username
… that's what I do, it is quite practical
McCool: (adds a link to the mail to the Wiki)
Daylight Saving Time
McCool: We are now back to the old time, as you've noticed, since you are here
New WoT IG Charter
Kaz: The extension request got one approval so far
… they understand that we are outside the original charter period
… hopefully, they will approve us today or tomorrow
… just means that can't publish new documents but discussion can continue
McCool: The 3 month extension is probably too generous, but it is just to be on the safe side
Notices
McCool: Anything to announce here?
No announcements
Meetups
WoT CG
McCool: There is a planned meetup regarding WoT and Solid
… on May 16
… any more updates?
Ege: There will also be new tutorial videos on the YouTube channel
McCool: Keep us posted
WoT JP CG
Mizushima: There, but planning some more events is nothing to report here
Cancellations and Schedule Updates
McCool: I am going to clean up the list of cancellations
… next week there are the AC meetings
… Kaz is going to travel that week
… on April 16 there is going to be another cancellation, will you be available then?
… main call is going to be on the 17th
Kaz: Will be available on the 17th, on the 16th there will be the Japanese Community meeting
McCool: April 22 until April 26, there is going to be the Hannover fair
McCool: As Kaz is not going to be available on April 10, so we are going to cancel the main call
McCool: The use cases call is going to be cancelled on April 17
Kaz: Yeah, Mizushima-San is not going to be able to make preparations then
McCool: On April 29, the Scripting TF should decide whether the call is going to be cancelled
Schedule
McCool: Feel free to update the schedule depending on your taskforce planning
Publications
No updates here
JSON Schema
McCool: There has been an ongoing debate on JSON Schema
… JSON Schema is not a standard, but we are using it in our specifications
… and for TD validation
… however, they were recently withdrawing from the IETF and decided to essentially form their own SDO
… so there was the question whether we can normatively depend on such a specification
… I feel that we should formally declare our dependency on JSON Schema so that is not buried under a lot of noise
… and that someone should summarize the current state of the discussion
… so the question is whether we should make a statement as a group
… or whether we should only respond individually
… so I wanted to ask whether someone wants to volunteer to go through this and summarize it for us
… want to ask Ege if could do that
<Ege> https://
Ege: I can write up a summary and I could go to their monthly meetup and present it to them
… in the discussion linked above, there is also their process document
… I can create a text and share it with the group here
McCool: My goal is that W3C understands WoT's position and whether we support this
Ege: At least I support treating JSON Schema as a normative, referencable document
<Ege> also see: https://
McCool: We should discuss this and make clear that we as a group formed a consensus here. Should draft a resolution and pass it within one week
Ege: Should make it clear publicly that we support them
Kaz: Wanted to ask you all to summarize our need
McCool: Let's discuss with the group and make our position clear
… Ege can make a draft and we can then discuss it
Kaz: Summary and decision should be made by the chairs but we can delegate it to Ege
… but we can discuss Ege's draft
McCool: Want Ege to draft as the whole WG something which can then agree to as a group
… need a written draft to make sure that we are all on the same page
Kaz: Thank you for volunteering, Ege!
Luca: Let's think about a worst-case scenario
… if their decision to form an SDO and their published version does not satisfy us
McCool: We would not be worse off than we are today
Luca: If they keep evolving their specification but we can pin the version we are referring to as a standard, but if they are keep moving, then we might need to "import" the version we are referring to into our specifications
McCool: We need JSON Schema for validation, e.g. in the directory service, there are other mechanisms such as JSON-LD
… not consistent with industry tooling
… we need to figure out how strong the dependency really is and what we need to cite it
David: I chose to be an early reviewer of Ege
… we are relying heavily on JSON Schema, version 7 to be precise
… if you ever need help, Ege, just let me know
Daniel: Quick note: I doubt that we are the only ones relying on JSON Schema within W3C
… should coordinate with them
… and reach out to them and make a common statement to the W3C, across groups
<Ege> https://
McCool: I am also think about the web ecosystem, e.g. OpenAPI, for them it is pretty important
… also the people from the schemas breakout
Ege: There is also the Verifiable Credentials WG, which we should involve
Kaz: I think that's why we are asking Ege to summarize our point
F2F Planning
McCool: June is coming pretty close, when Sebastian returns I hope we can pin down the open questions
<Zakim> Ege, you wanted to mention that VC is also reliant on JSON Schema
McCool: I added an additional level of approval to the wiki
… please fill in the table, so that we have a better idea who will join
Kaz: I hope to be able to come, but the 90% is conditional, depending on the topics discussed
… that is probably also true for you, right?
McCool: Yes, therefore I hope to finalize the agenda soon
… also considering that there are stricter guidelines in place now
Versioning
<kaz> draft policy on TD repo
McCool: We had a meeting last week
… walked through the draft policy
… as far as I understand, this is the latest version of the prososal
… did not make it to a resolution, plan is to spend some more time during tomorrow's TD call and finish it
… note that this is in the TD repo for now, but it should also apply to other TFs, so ideally we should move it to the wot repository eventually
… this should also affect Profiles
Luca: Probably depends on what we want to do in Profiles
McCool: You will probably also have ontologies etc.
Luca: One of the open questions for Profiles is whether they will insert additional vocabularies
… but I read it and I am aware of it, as I am one of the authors
Ege: One thing: Tomorrow, I would like to focus on the discussion regarding the pre-REC
… including the date in the version
… then we should have a resolution
TF reports
McCool: We should probably skip this, with the exception of Profile, since we are short on time. Does anyone want to give an update?
No other updates
Profile
<kaz> wot-profile Issue 369 - Clarifications on async actions
Luca: The problem we currently have within Profile is that we this problem that asynchronous actions are underspecified
… in Profile we are facing the issue that since it is underspecified in TD, we have Profiles that specify what should happen in such a case, which is not covered by TD
… so the question is whether Profile can patch or override TD
… then Profile would need to be REC to patch TD, otherwise we would need to fix TD
… if we fix it in TD 2.0, we are fine, otherwise we would need to publish Profiles as a Note
Luca: We can choose to move forward with the 2.0 philosophy that Profile is only further restricting what you can do with TD. So the way to expand the capabilities is only within TD
… for version 1.0 we have this problem and we need to discuss whether Profile can fix TD
… or whether Profiles should only operate within this scope
… otherwise asynchronous actions would need to be axed from the current version
… or we close it as a note and we use the collection of issues in the right place
… and fix them
… want to have a consensus for that
… then we can discuss how to reach this aim most efficiently
Kaz: I think we as the whole WoT WG should think about what we should do as the whole WG
… we can of course listen to all of the participants
… but we should discuss the deliverables as a WG. Should focus on the current charter, we can publish the current draft as a note or REC in this charter period
McCool: I've seen other WGs first publishing CRs and never going to REC
… I think we should first get a full consensus from the WG before going to REC
Daniel: I agree, would also say that we should first fix TD before going to REC
… I think there is a third option to first fix TD and then go to REC
… I think a full consensus might be unlikely, so maybe we could have a poll instead
McCool: Procedurally, I think we can make a call for resolution
… remember that it is consensual, so if one person objects, it is dead
… regarding actions, I feel like TD is a way to describe how a given system works, while a Profile describes a specific Thing should operate
… need to split this in the right way. Question whether we can fix this via TD alone, my guess is "no"
Luca: We can fix it via TD, that is not a problem
… the question is whether we need additional vocabulary terms. We would need to publish a publication and the question is whether it would be version 1.2 or 2.0
McCool: We should make a resolution that clearly states the options
<Ege> +1
McCool: should list the different options and then let the group decide
… should be done by the Profile TF
Kaz: Generally agree, the Profile TF should clarify the painpoints, though
… then these problems should be handled by the TD TF
McCool: Each option should be motivated with pros and cons listed
… we are out of time, so let's organize ourselves
Luca: Should we refer to the issues in Profile or open new ones in TD?
McCool: Should be something like a Markdown document with the options
… can link relevant issues
Luca: Will probably create a draft .md file and then we can move it somewhere appropriate
<kaz> [main call adjourned; policy discussion starts in 10 mins]
<luca_barbato> scribenick luca_barbato
Policy PRs
PR 1128
<kaz> PR 1128 - [Policy] Move chair-decision-process.md from "proposals" to "policies"
Koster: We could just use the standard W3C policy
Koster: We can just close this PR, any objections?
<no objections>
<mm> proposal: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging.
McCool: Any objections?
<no objections>
RESOLUTION: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging.
Issue 1168 and PR 1181
<kaz> Issue 1168 - [Policy Proposal] WoT-wide general policy on assertion ids
<mjk> PR 1181 - Assertion id policy proposal
Koster: The Issue and the PR addressing it is about the id format for assertions
Ege: I planned to expand it, I can update it right now
Kaz: Regarding 1168, are we going to review it during this call?
Koster: Yes, in the mean time we moved to the next subtopic
PR 1182
<kaz> PR 1182 - Article Selection Policy
Koster: This is the current policy draft for article selection
Ege: the second point needs more discussion
<Ege> example of collaboration would be https://
<kaz> rendered MD
Koster: We have 3 kind of articles, all of them with some degree of involvement
Koster: I think it is consensus to not accept articles from third parties that have no relationship with us
Koster: I think the only question is about CG groups
Koster: Are other W3C CG considered close enough to us or not?
Kaz: I agree with McCool, we should start with only IG and WG participants
Ege: I think we have to focus on if it is a person writing on their blog or if it is a company/organization writing on their public blog as the company itself.
Ege: I think there is agreement to not accept by default CG submissions
Koster: I thought of W3C members not part of the WoT WG and IG
Ege: Under point 3 we could have a WG member that wrote an article on a magazine
Cristiano: What to do regarding Invited Expert in this regard?
Cristiano: I agree with kaz regarding not accepting CG submission
Cristiano: to me is not really clear what to do regarding social media posts from 3rd parties we like to showcase
Luca: I think we should consider the policy as the default, but in the end is up to the marketing TF decide if a content is worthy or not publication
Koster: If there something really compelling we can make an exception, we can update line 13 to clarify that
Ege: I'd clarify line 9 to specify the IG members
… I propose to be explicit regarding the Invited Experts
Ege: Also if we do a collaboration with CG members, it should fall on point 2
Ege: I agree with Luca we can have exceptions but they should go through the main call
Cristiano: It feel we should be clear that is up to the marketing TF, I'd change line 7 to be less strict
Kaz: In the end the key criteria is all about the content (=whether the content to be referred to or not), but the default policy should be about the WG and IG members
… if we really want to include more people, it would get kind of complicated and the whole IG would have to review the content
… if the content is coming from IG and WG it is much easier
Cristiano: we should be explicit that this is the default policy
<cris1> +1
Kaz: I'd clarify more line 11, which should be "It is written by one of the IG or WG participants."
Koster: do we have consensus on line 11?
Luca: I'd merge it since we solved the last point of contention
Koster: objections?
<no objections, merged>
Koster: We move the discussion on 1181 to the next meeting
Koster: adjourned